Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Unraveling the kinematic and morphological evolution of the Small Magellanic Cloud

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Modeling nine stellar populations shows the Small Magellanic Cloud evolved from a non-rotating ellipsoid to a rotating disk as stars aged, with inclination decreasing and position angle increasing with age.

desk verdict Worth careful refereeing — new age-stratified kinematic map of the SMC, but the headline morphological-age trend rests on viewing angles that may not be identified from proper motions alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00788 v1 pith:B3YD7NQU submitted 2025-01-01 astro-ph.GA

S. R. Dhanush , A. Subramaniam , S. Subramanian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SmallMagellanicCloudGaiaDR3propermotionsgalaxykinematicsstellarpopulationsdiskmorphologytidalinteractionCloudsMarkovChainMonteCarlo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the Small Magellanic Cloud has undergone an age-dependent structural transition: the oldest stellar populations form a slowly rotating, flattened ellipsoid, while populations younger than about 400 million years form a rotation-supported, highly inclined disk. The evidence comes from fitting a parametric kinematic model to Gaia DR3 proper motions of nine populations, including main-sequence stars, red giants, red clump stars, and three age groups of star clusters. The fit yields an asymptotic rotation velocity of roughly 49-89 km/s with a scale radius of 6-9 kpc and a velocity dispersion of about 9-11 km/s for the young disk, and it reproduces a line-of-sight extension of about 30 kpc. If correct, this would mean the SMC is not simply one shape but has been reshaped over time, likely by the interaction with the Large Magellanic Cloud, and several residual proper-motion anomalies, including a newly identified infalling region, trace that tidal history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a parametric disk-kinematic model, applied to the proper-motion field of each stellar population. The model assumes the observed proper motion is the sum of a common center-of-mass translation and an internal rotation component, with the rotation following an arctangent-like profile governed by an asymptotic velocity vf and a scale radius Rf; the model also treats the disk inclination i and position angle of the line of nodes as free parameters. Parameters are estimated with an MCMC sampler, and for each population the paper compares a rotating and a non-rotating model variant, choosing the one whose posterior converges. The same framework is extended to a 3D version by adding line-of-sight velocities of red giants. Residual maps, computed as observed minus modeled proper motion, are then used to identify spatially coherent kinematic anomalies.

What would settle it

Refit the old, non-rotating populations (YMS3, RGB, RC, CLSO, and red giants) with a model that sets rotation to zero and lets i and Theta float freely; if their posterior distributions are flat or the extra parameters do not improve the fit, then the reported age-gradient in i and Theta, and the line-of-sight depths built on them, are not supported by the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the SMC's kinematics and morphology depend on stellar age in a coordinated way. For the young main-sequence populations (YMS1 and YMS2) and the young and intermediate-age clusters (CLSY and CLSI), the proper-motion field is well described by a rotating disk: the model converges on a non-zero asymptotic velocity vf in the range ~49-89 km/s, scale radius Rf ~6-9 kpc, and small rotational dispersion sigma_rot ~9-11 km/s, indicating a rotation-supported, thin, highly stretched disk. For the older populations (YMS3, RGB, RC, CLSO, and red giants with line-of-sight velocities), the rotation signal is negligible and the proper-motion field is consistent with a non-rotating, flattened ellipsoidal distribution. The viewing angles from these fits show a monotonic trend: inclination decreases from about 82 to 58 degrees and position angle increases from about 180 to 240 degrees with increasing age. The paper also finds four residual proper-motion anomalies—East, South East, South, and West—which it interprets as tidal and infall signatures of the recent LMC interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the viewing angles (inclination and position angle) measured for the non-rotating old populations are actually determined by the data, even though a non-rotating proper-motion field depends only on the center-of-mass translation and not on those angles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SMC's morphology is not fixed: it can be simultaneously an ellipsoid (in its old stars) and a rotating disk (in its young stars), and the monotonic age trends in i and Theta imply a structural transition over the past ~1-2 Gyr.
  • The young disk is rotation-supported and thin, with sigma_rot of only ~10 km/s, extending more than 20 kpc in the disk plane and producing a line-of-sight depth of up to ~30 kpc.
  • The old populations are pressure-supported, with negligible rotation, and their modeled line-of-sight extension of ~11 kpc each side confirms the large depth previously inferred from distance indicators.
  • The East, South East, South, and West proper-motion anomalies are coherent kinematic signatures of the LMC interaction; the newly identified South East Anomaly, interpreted as infalling gas and stars, implies recent accretion onto the SMC.
  • The base kinematic models provide a reference frame for identifying minority outlier populations and for calibrating numerical simulations of the Magellanic system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the non-rotating old populations cannot actually constrain i and Theta from proper motions alone, the reported age gradient in viewing angles may reflect model priors or the adopted disk geometry rather than a real geometric sequence; a 3D analysis with full radial velocities for all populations would settle this.
  • The newly identified South East Anomaly, if truly infalling, predicts that the southeastern stellar population should show a distinct line-of-sight velocity offset and possibly a different age/metallicity distribution compared with the disk model's expectation.
  • The modeled ~30 kpc line-of-sight extension is a directly testable prediction: comparing distance moduli of red clump stars or Cepheids across the body of the SMC against the model's LOS distance map would confirm or refute the inferred geometry without relying on proper-motion modeling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper models Gaia DR3 proper motions of nine SMC stellar populations using the van der Marel et al. (2002) kinematic framework, with MCMC fits that either include or exclude a rotation component. The central claim is an age-dependent structural transition: young populations younger than ~400 Myr (YMS1, YMS2, CLSY, and CLSI) are consistent with a rotating, highly inclined disk with asymptotic rotation velocity vf ~ 49-89 km/s and scale radius Rf ~ 6-9 kpc, while older populations (YMS3, RGB, RC, CLSO, Red Giants) show negligible rotation and a flattened ellipsoidal morphology. The paper also reports that the inclination decreases and the position angle of the line of nodes increases with age, estimates a line-of-sight extension of ~30 kpc, and identifies four residual proper-motion anomalies (EA, SEA, SA, WA), including a newly claimed infalling feature (SEA).

Significance. If the age-dependent transition from a rotating young disk to a non-rotating old ellipsoid is real, it would be an important constraint on the SMC's tidal and dynamical evolution and on its interaction history with the LMC. The COM proper-motion estimates agree broadly with recent literature (Table 2), and the residual-anomaly maps, especially the newly identified SEA, provide a useful observational baseline for simulations. The paper's main limitation is that the headline structural gradient rests on viewing angles for non-rotating populations whose identifiability is not demonstrated, and on a model-selection criterion based on convergence rather than statistical comparison. These issues are local and testable, so the central claim is defensible if the requested diagnostics support it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.2 and 4.2] The choice between the rotating and non-rotating model variants is made by "convergence in the posterior distribution" (Sections 3.2, 4.2), not by a model-comparison statistic. For YMS3, RGB, RC, and CLSO, a non-converging rotating fit does not by itself demonstrate that the rotation amplitude is zero; it may indicate that the data are unable to constrain the rotation parameters. I request a quantitative comparison between the two variants for each population, for example via BIC/AIC or cross-validated log likelihood, together with posterior distributions of vf for the old populations with the rotation term left free. This is load-bearing for the conclusion that the old populations have negligible rotation.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1] For populations in which vf is effectively zero, i and Theta enter the V02 proper-motion model only through the perspective/depth modulation of the COM motion. For the old populations this modulation has an amplitude of roughly (z/D0) times the ~420 km/s COM motion, i.e., ~0.1 mas/yr for a few-kpc depth, comparable to the quoted residual RMS (0.07-0.22 mas/yr) and to Gaia DR3 systematics. The 1-2 degree uncertainties quoted for i and Theta of YMS3, RGB, RC, and CLSO in Table 1 are therefore not evidently data-driven; a likelihood-flatness check over i and Theta for the non-rotating fits (e.g., with vf fixed to zero) should be shown. Because the claimed line-of-sight extension of ~30 kpc in Section 5.3 is a geometric projection of exactly these fitted angles, this issue propagates to the LOS-depth claim as well.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The claimed monotonic age trend in the viewing angles is not robust. In Table 1, i decreases from ~82 deg for YMS1 to ~58 deg for RGB and RC, but the Red Giants (D14) have i = 66.01 deg, breaking the monotonic decrease, and the increase in Theta from ~190 deg to 240 deg is largely driven by CLSO, which the text in Section 5.1 itself describes as sparse and centrally concentrated. The paper should present a robustness test omitting CLSO and the Red Giants, or explicitly demote the age-gradient morphology claim from a principal result to a tentative trend.
  4. [Section 5.2] The inference that the young SMC is "rotation-supported" compares the fitted asymptotic velocity vf (49-89 km/s) with the residual rotational dispersion sigma_rot (9-11 km/s) computed about the same fitted rotation curve. Because the rotation curve is fit to the same data, the residual dispersion is minimized by construction, making this comparison circular as a disk-support diagnostic. Please compare the rotation amplitude with the total velocity dispersion of the young populations (including correlated errors), and report the model-comparison statistic between rotating and non-rotating fits for YMS1, YMS2, CLSY, and CLSI.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.3, Figure 10 caption] The rotation angles for the 3D views are inconsistent: the text gives R1 = 90 deg followed by R2 = 20 deg for panel (b), while the caption lists (R1,R2) = (90,20) for panel (b) and (R1,R2) = (90,120) for panel (c); the sentence "R2 = 90" in the text appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 4] The four residual anomalies (EA, SEA, SA, WA) are identified visually, without a quantitative significance threshold or a signal-to-noise map of the residuals. Since the SEA is highlighted as a new infalling feature, please add a significance map so the anomaly is not just an eyeball detection.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text states that Theta ranges from ~185 deg to ~202 deg for most populations, but Table 1 lists RGB with Theta = 207.66 deg, RC with 202.00 deg, and CLSO with 240.44 deg; these numbers should be reconciled in the text.
  4. [Section 3.2] The uniform priors for i, theta, vt, and vf are described but their numerical ranges are not given; since the reported errors are posterior credible intervals, the prior ranges should be explicitly listed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the analysis is a fit with external consistency checks, though old-population orientation angles are less strongly identified than their quoted errors suggest.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard MCMC fit of a V02 disk model to Gaia DR3 proper motions; the reported parameters (i, Theta, vf, Rf, vt, theta_t) are fitted values, not predictions. The claimed age trend is a summary of Table 1, and the LOS-depth 'agreement' is checked against independent photometric distance studies (J16, R17, etc.), so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 'rotation-supported' inference compares the fitted asymptotic velocity to the measured scatter about the fitted rotation curve; this is a fit diagnostic rather than an independent prediction, but it is not equivalent to the model input by construction. The model-selection step is a limitation: the no-rotation variant is chosen by MCMC convergence (Sections 3.2 and 4.2), and the old-population i/Theta (CLSO, RGB, RC) may therefore be less securely identified; the paper itself notes the CLSO Theta value is driven by sparse/central coverage (Section 5.1). These caveats reduce confidence but do not constitute circularity. Self-citations (D24, Dhanush et al. 2024b) supply cluster ages and an MCMC implementation; they are independent inputs, not outcomes of this paper's model, and the results are benchmarked against external studies (N21, Z18, G18, V16, K13, C11, Z21, D18).

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claims rest on a fitted 7-parameter disk model: the rotation claim uses fitted vf and Rf, the morphological trend uses fitted i and Theta per population, and the LOS depth is a geometric projection of those fitted angles at a fixed distance. The main external anchors are the COM PM values, which match prior studies (Table 2), and literature consistency of the derived depth. Nothing is machine-checked, and no reproducible code or data products are shipped.

free parameters (7)
  • Asymptotic rotation velocity vf = YMS1: 88.61+11.47/-10.38 km/s; YMS2: 49.32+10.91/-9.44; CLSY: 66.59; CLSI: 49.73 km/s
    Fitted by MCMC in the rotation-model variant; drives the 'rotation-supported disk' interpretation for young populations (Table 1).
  • Rotation scale radius Rf = YMS1: 8.84+1.30/-1.21 kpc; YMS2: 5.85+1.65/-1.52; CLSY: 7.12; CLSI: 6.33 kpc
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior centered at 1.1 kpc (D18); the posterior lands at 6-9 kpc, an order of magnitude above the prior mean, an unexplained tension with the HI-based D18 value (Section 5.2).
  • Inclination i (per population) = 58.20 deg (RC) to 81.94 deg (YMS1)
    Fitted per population; for non-rotating populations the PM data may not constrain it, yet small uncertainties are reported in Table 1.
  • Position angle of line of nodes Theta (per population) = 185.79 deg (YMS1) to 240.44 deg (CLSO)
    Fitted per population; the CLSO value is likely biased by the sparse, centrally concentrated cluster sample, as the authors note (Section 5.1).
  • COM tangential velocity amplitude vt and angle theta_t = vt ~ 420-447 km/s; theta_t ~ 241 deg
    Fitted per population; largely determined by the bulk proper motion and consistent across populations within about 3% (Table 1).
  • Binning choice: 0.25 deg bins, minimum 5 stars per bin = 0.25 deg
    Chosen ad hoc so that features in the bulk PM and residual PM maps are 'visually clear' (Section 2); the paper asserts parameter insensitivity to this choice but shows no quantitative test.
  • Systemic velocity vsys = 146.70 +/- 0.10 km/s (Red Giants); 145.6 km/s fixed otherwise
    Fitted only in the 3D red-giant model; fixed to the V02 value for all 2D models (Section 3.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption V02 disk-kinematics model: observed PM equals COM translation plus projected internal rotation of a single inclined disk plane (van der Marel et al. 2002)
    Adopted without derivation in Section 3.1; the ellipsoidal old population is modeled as the projected distribution of this disk.
  • domain assumption The SMC disk experiences no precession or nutation
    Stated in Section 3.1; required for the V02 projection to map cleanly onto the observed PM field.
  • domain assumption A single mean distance D0 = 62.44 kpc (Graczyk et al. 2020) for all sources, with no per-source distance spread
    Used to convert proper motions to velocities and to compute LOS depths (Sections 3.2 and 5.3); the SMC's known ~20 kpc depth is not propagated into the fits.
  • standard math Rotation curve follows the D18 parametric form with parameters vf and Rf
    The equation is cited to Di Teodoro et al. 2018 and not reproduced; the fitted Rf differs from the D18 HI-based value by roughly 6-9x (Section 5.2).
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 proper-motion uncertainties and spatially correlated systematics are negligible at the 0.05-0.1 mas/yr level of the reported residuals
    Required for the EA, SEA, SA, and WA anomalies (magnitudes ~0.07-0.1 mas/yr, Section 4.1) to be physical; no systematic-error term appears in Equation 1.
  • domain assumption Population samples (J23 P >= 0.31 cut, G21 CMD polygons, Saroon and Subramanian RC selection, D14 red giants) are unbiased tracers of their age groups
    Sample selection in Section 2; any contamination or age overlap (for example, YMS3 mixing stars across 1-2 Gyr) propagates into the fitted kinematics.
invented entities (4)
  • East Anomaly (EA)
    purpose: Interprets the east/northeast residual PM flow beyond ~2 deg as tidal pull toward the LMC along the young Magellanic Bridge.
    Identified by visual inspection of the YMS2 residual map (Section 4.1); the direction is consistent with Niederhofer et al. (2021), but no quantitative significance threshold or independent velocity handle is given.
  • South East Anomaly (SEA)
    purpose: Interprets the southeast residual PM pattern, which resembles counter-rotation, as gas infalling from the outskirts, with stars born from that gas retaining infall kinematics.
    Reported as new (Sections 4.1 and 5.4); the pattern is model-dependent because it is defined relative to the fitted disk, and the infall interpretation is not tested against radial velocities or gas data.
  • South Anomaly (SA)
    purpose: Interprets the southward residual flow on the SMC outskirts as a connection to the old Magellanic Bridge.
    Visual residual feature (Sections 4.1 and 5.4); the bridge link is interpretive and not quantitatively tested.
  • West Anomaly (WA)
    purpose: Interprets the central and southwest westward residual flow as motion toward the west halo and possibly the Magellanic Stream.
    Visual residual feature (Sections 4.1 and 5.4); consistent with the west halo of Dias et al. (2016), but the anomaly is not independently measured outside the fitted model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling the kinematic and morphological evolution of the Small Magellanic Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3YD7NQU

@misc{pith2026250100788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling the kinematic and morphological evolution of the Small Magellanic Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3YD7NQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00788}
}
abstract

We modeled the kinematics of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) by analyzing the proper motion (PM) from Gaia DR3 of nine different stellar populations, which include young main sequence (MS) stars (< 2 Gyr), red giant branch stars, red clump stars, red giants with line-of-sight velocities, and three groups of star clusters. This analysis was carried out using a robust Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to derive up to 7 kinematic parameters. We trace the evolution from a non-rotating flattened elliptical system as mapped by the old population to a rotating highly stretched disk structure as denoted by the young MS stars and clusters (< 400 Myr). We estimated that the inclination, i (~ 58$^\circ$ to 82$^\circ$) decreases and the position angle, $\Theta$ (~ 180$^\circ$ to 240$^\circ$) increases with age. We estimated an asymptotic velocity of ~ 49 - 89 km s$^{-1}$ with scale-radius of ~ 6 - 9 kpc for the young MS populations with velocity dispersion of ~ 11 km s$^{-1}$, suggesting a rotation-supported disk structure. Our models estimate a line-of-sight extension of ~ 30 kpc, in agreement with observations. We identified four regions of the SMC showing anomalies in the residual PM, the East Anomaly (EA), South East Anomaly (SEA), South Anomaly (SA), and West Anomaly (WA). The SEA appears like an infalling feature and is identified for the first time. The tidal imprints observed in the residual PM of the SMC suggest that its evolution is considerably shaped by the recent interaction with the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CMD illustrating the selection of various stellar populations in the SMC as defined in section 2 is presented here. The populations are highlighted in corre￾sponding colors: RC stars (pink), RGB stars (red), YMS3 (yellow), YMS2 (green), and YMS1 (light blue). We also used the dataset of 280 star clusters in the SMC from the analysis of Dhanush et al. (2024a, here￾after, D24), spanning ages from ∼ 12 Myr to 3.4 G… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The corner plot representing the sampled posterior distribution of kinematic parameters for the YMS1 is shown here. The vertical red lines represent the median values, and the black dashed lines represent the 16th and 84th percentiles. more spatially spread than YMS1 and YMS2. This population does not exhibit significant rotation in their bulk PM, as the model variant that includes rotation fails to achieve converge… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The corner plot representing the sampled posterior distribution of kinematic parameters for the Red Giants with vlos (panel a) and RGB without vlos (panel b) are shown here. The vertical red lines represent the median values, and the black dashed lines represent the 16th and 84th percentiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The observed PM (panels a and d), residual PM vectors (panels b and e), and distribution of |residual PM| (panels c and f) for the YMS1&2 are shown here. The EA, SEA, SA, and WA regions identified in the residual PM map of YMS2 are highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The observed PM (panel a), residual PM vectors (panel b), and distribution of |residual PM| (panel c) for the YMS3 are shown here. The SEA, SA, and WA regions identified in the residual PM map of YMS3 are highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The observed PM (panel a), residual PM vectors (panel b), and distribution of |residual PM| (panel c) for the CLSY are shown here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The observed PM (panels a and d), residual PM vectors (panels b and e), and distribution of |residual PM| (panels c and f) for the RGB and RC are shown here. The SA and WA regions identified in the RGB and RC residual PM maps are highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The parameter space of the estimated (µW,com, µN,com) is compared with the reference studies provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The rotation velocity (Vrot) profile of the SMC is shown for YMS1 (panel a), YMS2 (panel b), and CLSY (panel c) in the SMC plane. Black dots represent the observed Vrot, while the red dashed curve denotes the modeled Vrot. The dispersion (σrot) of the observed Vrot for…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution of YMS1, YMS2, YMS3, RGB, and RC populations in our study are color-coded and depicted here. (a) populations in the sky plane perspective (X-Y plane), (b) X-Y-Z perspective 1: (R1, R2) = (90◦ , 20◦ ), (c) (b) X-Y-Z perspective 2: (R1, R2) = (90◦ , 120…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The age distribution of clusters (CLSY, CLI, and CLSO) is shown here according to their LOS distance (D), with each cluster color-coded based on extinction in the Gaia G band (AG). D0 = 62.44 kpc is the adopted mean distance to the SMC, with σD representing the standa…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The morphology of the SMC is shown in the disk plane (primed coordinates) of the galaxy. Panels from (a) to (f) show RC, RGB, YMS3, YMS2, CLSY, and YMS1, respectively. The sources in each population are color-coded with LOS distance (D, in kpc) as well. predominantly …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the internal PM components (PMX, PMY ) along the X direction of the sky plane for YMS2&1 are shown here. Observed PMX and PMY are represented by brown dots, while their corresponding model predictions are indicated by black dots. The SEA, EA, SA, and WA …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Cioni, M. R. L., Habing, H. J., & Israel, F. P. 2000, A&A, 358, L9, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005057

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0005057 2000

  3. [3]

    A., Pedreros, M

    Costa, E., M´ endez, R. A., Pedreros, M. H., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/136 2011

  4. [4]

    R., Mackey, A

    Cullinane, L. R., Mackey, A. D., Da Costa, G. S., Koposov, S. E., & Erkal, D. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac129 de Vaucouleurs, G., & Freeman, K. 1972, Vistas in Astronomy, 14, 163, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(72)90026-8

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac129 2023

  5. [5]

    P., et al

    Deb, S., Kurbah, K., Singh, H. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3725, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2328

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2328 2019

  6. [6]

    P., Kumar, S., & Kanbur, S

    Deb, S., Singh, H. P., Kumar, S., & Kanbur, S. M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv358 De Leo, M., Carrera, R., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 98, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1122

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv358 2015

  7. [7]

    2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae096

    Subramanian, S. 2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae096

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae096

  8. [8]

    R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S

    Dhanush, S. R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2016, A&A, 591, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527558

    Dias, B., Kerber, L., Barbuy, B., Bica, E., & Ortolani, S. 2016, A&A, 591, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527558

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Angelo, M., et al

    Dias, B., Parisi, M. C., Angelo, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac259

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Bekki, K

    Diaz, J. D., & Bekki, K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/36 Di Teodoro, E. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Jameson, K. E., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3095

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Cole, A

    Dobbie, P. D., Cole, A. A., Subramaniam, A., & Keller, S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu910 D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251 El Youssoufi, D., Cioni, M.-R. L., Bell, C. P. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 107...

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., van Leeuwen, F., et al

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832698 Gaia Collaboration, Luri, X., Chemin, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A7, doi: ...

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    T., Sawa, T., & Fujimoto, M

    Gardiner, L. T., Sawa, T., & Fujimoto, M. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 266, 567, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.3.567

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb2b

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/110

    Fouquet, S. 2015, ApJ, 813, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/110

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953 —

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953 —. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 2514, doi: 10.1086/500974

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    K., & Duffau, S

    Haschke, R., Grebel, E. K., & Duffau, S. 2012, AJ, 144, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/107

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    K., & Subramanian, S

    Hota, S., Subramaniam, A., Nayak, P. K., & Subramanian, S. 2024, UVIT Study of the MAgellanic Clouds (U-SMAC) II. A Far-UV catalog of the Small Magellanic Cloud: Morphology and Kinematics of young stellar population. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13605

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Skowron, D

    Jacyszyn-Dobrzeniecka, A. M., Skowron, D. M., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2016, AcA, 66, 149, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1602.09141 —. 2017, AcA, 67, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/67.1.1 18 Dhanush et al

    2016 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    O., et al

    James, D., Subramanian, S., Omkumar, A. O., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2873 Jim´ enez-Arranz,´O., Romero-G´ omez, M., Luri, X., &

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    Masana, E. 2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Kazantzidis, S., et al

    Klimentowski, J., Lokas, E. L., Kazantzidis, S., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 353, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11799.x

    2007

  20. [28]

    1981, RMxAA, 6, 55

    Loiseau, N., & Bajaja, E. 1981, RMxAA, 6, 55

    1981

  21. [29]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 381, L11, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00356.x

    Muller, E., & Bekki, K. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 381, L11, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00356.x

    2007

  22. [30]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2514

    Muraveva, T., Subramanian, S., Clementini, G., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2514

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Majewski, S

    Nidever, D. L., Majewski, S. R., Burton, W. B., & Nigra, L. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 1618, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1618

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Majewski, S

    Nidever, D. L., Majewski, S. R., & Butler Burton, W. 2008, ApJ, 679, 432, doi: 10.1086/587042

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Niederhofer, F., Cioni, M. R. L., Rubele, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833144

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Rubele, S., et al

    Niederhofer, F., Cioni, M.-R. L., Rubele, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 2859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab206

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Jones, J

    Oey, M. S., Jones, J. D., Castro, N., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 867, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae892

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    O., Subramanian, S., Niederhofer, F., et al

    Omkumar, A. O., Subramanian, S., Niederhofer, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3085

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Piatti, A. E. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 3462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3190

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Piatti, A. E. 2021, A&A, 650, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140643 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    K., & Barnes, D

    Gibson, B. K., & Barnes, D. G. 2003, ApJ, 586, 170, doi: 10.1086/344477

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Gibson, B

    Putman, M. E., Gibson, B. K., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 752, doi: 10.1038/29466

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Moretti, M

    Ripepi, V., Cioni, M.-R. L., Moretti, M. I., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2096

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    Rubele, S., Pastorelli, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    D., No¨ el, N

    Sakowska, J. D., No¨ el, N. E. D., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1766

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, A&A, 666, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141435 Stanimirovi´ c, S., Staveley-Smith, L., & Jones, P

    Saroon, S., & Subramanian, S. 2022, A&A, 666, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141435 Stanimirovi´ c, S., Staveley-Smith, L., & Jones, P. A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 176, doi: 10.1086/381869

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/128 —

    Subramanian, S., & Subramaniam, A. 2012, ApJ, 744, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/128 —. 2015, A&A, 573, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424248

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx205

    Subramanian, S., Rubele, S., Sun, N.-C., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx205

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    L., van Loon, J

    Tatton, B. L., van Loon, J. T., Cioni, M. R. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3857 van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639, doi: 10.1086/343775 van der Marel, R. P., & Sahlmann, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Jo...

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Kerp, J., & Kalberla, P

    Venzmer, M. S., Kerp, J., & Kalberla, P. M. W. 2012, A&A, 547, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118677

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Weinberg, M. D. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 532, 922, doi: 10.1086/308600

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    K., & Thompson, I

    Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., Grebel, E. K., & Thompson, I. B. 2000, ApJL, 534, L53, doi: 10.1086/312649

    2000 doi

  44. [52]

    Zivick, P., Kallivayalil, N., & van der Marel, R. P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1bb

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    P., et al

    Zivick, P., Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4b0

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.